G.R. No. 25912 , November 15, 1926
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS vs. BENIGNO PALAMOS and VENANCIO PALACAIN

FACTS

On the night of February 3, 1925, in Siaton, Oriental Negros, a group of people, including the appellants Benigno Palamos and Venancio Palacain, and the deceased Bonifacio Pajulas, were gathered playing cards (*monte*) in a yard. A quarrel ensued. Prosecution witness Juan Palopalo testified that he saw Venancio Palacain strike Bonifacio on the neck, causing him to fall face down. While Bonifacio was on the ground, Benigno Palamos trampled upon and beat him. The injured Bonifacio was helped home, where he told his family that Venancio and Benigno had beaten him. He vomited blood and died the following morning. The appellants were charged with murder but were convicted by the trial court of the lesser crime of homicide, considering the aggravating circumstance of superior strength offset by the mitigating circumstance of lack of instruction.

ISSUE

1. Whether the guilt of the appellants for the crime of homicide was proven beyond reasonable doubt.
2. Whether the exempting circumstance of self-defense in favor of Venancio Palacain should be appreciated.
3. Whether the defense of alibi for Benigno Palamos should be sustained.

RULING

The Supreme Court AFFIRMED the trial court’s judgment.

1. Guilt Proven Beyond Reasonable Doubt: The Court found the guilt of both appellants established. It gave full credit to the positive, uncontradicted, and credible testimony of eyewitness Juan Palopalo. Furthermore, the dying declaration of the victim to his family, identifying his assailants, was admissible as part of the *res gestae*.

2. Self-Defense Not Established: The claim of Venancio Palacain that he acted in self-defense against an alleged knife attack by the victim was rejected. The Court found the testimony of his sole witness (his grandson) exaggerated, improbable, and not credible, especially in light of the positive prosecution evidence. No sufficient evidence of unlawful aggression by the deceased was proven.

3. Defense of Alibi Without Merit: The alibi of Benigno Palamosthat he was plowing in a field 300 *brazas* away on the afternoon of the crimewas dismissed. The Court noted that this distance did not preclude his presence at the crime scene that evening. His alibi witnesses were found unreliable, and their testimony could not prevail over the positive identification by the prosecution witnesses.

DISPOSITION: The judgment of conviction for homicide and the penalty of 14 years, 8 months, and 1 day of *reclusión temporal* for each appellant was affirmed.

DISSENTING OPINION (Romualdez, J., concurred in by Villa-Real, J.):
Justices Romualdez and Villa-Real dissented, believing that the evidence proved incomplete self-defense for both appellants, at least on the ground that the provocation came from the deceased. They argued that the penalty should have been imposed accordingly.